Help with a new graphics card

**proof** · 12-14-2005

Ok, at the moment i have a GeForce FX 5200, which was bought around March this year. Now i regret getting it becuase it sux. So, i want to buy a good, future prooft graphics card, that will play all my games with no fuss what so ever. Like the 6800. The catch is, i have aboyt £150 - £200 max to spend on one.
Can someone help point me into the right direction?
Last thing, it has to be AGP becuase i have no pci.
Thx

**SpaceMonkeyDave** · 12-14-2005

Do not advertise -adamba4e

**proof** · 12-14-2005

I just noticed that i posted this in the wrong section, was supposed to click PC Gaming. Sorry

**hoverbike** · 12-14-2005

Originally Posted by GrIm-ReaPer

Ok, at the moment i have a GeForce FX 5200, which was bought around March this year. Now i regret getting it becuase it sux. So, i want to buy a good, future prooft graphics card, that will play all my games with no fuss what so ever. Like the 6800. The catch is, i have aboyt £150 - £200 max to spend on one.
Can someone help point me into the right direction?
Last thing, it has to be AGP becuase i have no pci.
Thx

The problem is, you can't have a future proof computer ever. The best you can do is make sure your computer can be upgradeble at the most like your motherboard. The 6800 is a good choice but that won't be future proof so you can ether forget about the future proof thing or save up more money to buy better hardware (7800 GTX) or even one that comes out later on. AGP is something I'm not sure on but PCI-e is much better and faster. If your motherboard doesn't have PCI-e then you might want to upgrade the motherboard but that can host new problems so you may be stuck with AGP.

**MavSkipper** · 12-14-2005

well i got my Leadtek 6800 for like £100... it's AGP and it owns

check out overclockers.co.uk

edit: meh i just checked their site and they dont offer the 6800 leadtek anymore
they do have 6800GS(which is in your price range) but it's currently on pre-order

**JustinPinter** · 12-15-2005

I have a regualr computer that is 3.2ghz with hyper-threading, 512mb memory, and a 80gb HD. I think it has a Intel Accelerated Graphics card which maxes out at 128mb I think. I want to buy something not too spendy like a Geforece 6600 or something right below it. Just a nice general GFX card that can play most games and maybe even high end FPS PC games at medium settings. What should I buy? and how much is it? Plus is there anything else I should look into buying?

**ROMAN** · 12-16-2005

7800gt for aroun 300 canadian, more ram, and possibly a new psu.

**su37su** · 12-17-2005

get the Ati X850xl or xt its really a good card, right now I have the x800xl and I coudl play every game out right now with full settings.

**SessDMC** · 12-17-2005

My Ati Radeon 9550 Sucks as bad as it can get, im never buying Ati again!

Basicly you have to install the drivers in a certan way and its just so dam complicated to get it to work on a dam 15" wide screen LCD monitor, so dam messy!

**law44uk** · 12-17-2005

Originally Posted by Playstation4life

My Ati Radeon 9550 Sucks as bad as it can get, im never buying Ati again!

Basicly you have to install the drivers in a certan way and its just so dam complicated to get it to work on a dam 15" wide screen LCD monitor, so dam messy!

it's odd that you get problems like that, the drivers are easy to install. download them... uninstall the older ones... install new one. can't fail.

but do you have SP2? as Catlist controle thingy needs it.

**SolidSnakeUS** · 12-17-2005

Get a Sapphire X800GTO2, which is limited edition and is like $200 to $220 here, and it can unlock, with an official flashBIOS for it to X850 XT, and for your max spending limit, this will fit it. But I also don't know if it is available in Europe.

**Playstation Prince** · 12-23-2005

To any one who don't no what this baby is capable of here it is: The NV30 project had been delayed for three key reasons. One was because NVIDIA decided to produce an optimized version of the GeForce 3 (NV 20) which resulted in the GeForce 4 Ti (NV 25), while ATI cancelled its competing optimized chip (R250) and opted instead to focus on the R300 (Radeon 9700). The other reason was NVIDIA's commitment with Microsoft, to deliver the Xbox console's graphics processor (NV2A.) The Xbox venture diverted most of NVIDIA's engineers over not only the NV2A's initial design-cycle but also during the mid-life product revisions needed to discourage hackers. Finally, NVidia's transition to a 130 nm manufacturing process encountered unexpected difficulties. NVIDIA had ambitiously selected TSMC's then state-of-the-art (but unproven) low-K 0.13u process node. After sample silicon-wafers exhibited abnormally high defect-rates and poor circuit performance, NVIDIA was forced to re-tool the NV30 for a conventional (FSG) 0.13u process node. (NVidia's manufacturing difficulties with TSMC spurred the company to search for a second foundry. NVIDIA selected IBM to fabricate several future Geforce chips, citing IBM's process technology leadership. Yet curiously, NVIDIA avoided IBM's low-K process.)

The advertising campaign for the GeForce FX featured the Dawn fairy demo, which was the work of several veterans from the computer animation Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. NVIDIA touted it as "The Dawn of Cinematic Computing", while critics noted that this was the first time that sex appeal was used to sell graphics cards.

Beaten to market by ATI's Radeon 9700, NVIDIA planned for the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra to regain the high-end 3D-performance crown. These plans, however, did not come to fruition. The initial version of the GeForce FX (the 5800) was so large that it required two slots to accommodate it, required a massive heat sink and cooling fan arrangement, produced a great deal of noise from its fan. Although it rated respectable in competitive performance testing during its debut, the FX 5800's results were a disappointment because many expected NVIDIA to have the advantage of (the supposedly faster) 130 nm manufacturing process and a 6 month development lead over the Radeon 9700. The 5800 was plagued by shortages of expensive DDR-II memory which also failed to overcome its limited 128-bit memory bus (the Radeon 9700/9800 had a 256-bit memory bus), and the Radeon 9800 revision arrived timely to secure the performance lead. After a late and high-key introduction, NVIDIA quietly withdrew the 5800 from the market pending design revisions.

By early 2003, ATI had taken a considerable chunk of the high-end graphics market. In the meantime, NVIDIA introduced the mid-range 5600 and low-end 5200 models to address the mainstream market. With conventional single-slot cooling and a more affordable price-tag, the 5600 had respectable performance but failed to measure up to its direct competitor, Radeon 9600. As a matter of fact, the mid-range GeForce FX did not even advance performance over the chips they were designed to replace, the GeForce 4 Ti. In DirectX 8 applications, the 5600 lost by a considerable margin to the Ti 4200. Likewise, the entry-level FX 5200 performed worse than the GeForce 4 MX 440, despite the FX 5200 possessing a better 'checkbox' feature-set. Value-oriented gamers shunned the MX 440 and 5200 and opted for the Radeon 9000/9200 or paid more for the proven and very capable Ti 4200 which because of its age was now priced below the Radeon 9600/GeForce 5600.

With the launch of the GeForce FX 5900, NVIDIA fixed many of the problems of the 5800. While the 5800 used DDR-II and had a 128-bit memory bus, the 5900 reverted to the slower and cheaper DDR but it more than made up for it with a wider 256-bit memory bus. The 5900 performed somewhat better than the Radeon 9800 and had a quieter cooling system than the 5800, but it still occupied two slots (the Radeon 9700 and 9800 were both single-slot cards.) By mid-2003, ATI's top product (Radeon 9800) was outselling NVIDIA's top-line product (FX 5900), perhaps the first time that ATI had been able to displace NVIDIA's position as performance king.

NVIDIA later attacked ATI's mid-range card, the Radeon 9600, with the GeForce FX 5700 and 5900XT. The 5700 was a new chip sharing the architectural improvements found in the NV35. The FX 5700's use of DDR II memory kept product prices expensive, leading NVIDIA to introduce the FX 5900XT. The 5900XT is identical to the 5900 but is clocked slower, and uses slower memory.

In late 2003, the GeForce FX series became known notorious for poor performance with DirectX 9 Vertex & Pixel shaders. Early indicators of potentially poor PS2.0 performance came from synthetic benchmarks (such as 3DMark 2003.) But outside of the developer community and tech-savvy computer gamers, few mainstream users were aware of such issues. Then, Valve Software dropped a bombshell on the gaming public. Using a pre-release build of the Half-Life 2 game engine, Valve published benchmarks revealing a complete generational gap (80-120% or more) between the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and the ATI Radeon 9800. In Shader 2.0 enabled game-levels, NVIDIA's top-of-the-line FX 5900 Ultra performed about as fast as ATI's mainstream Radeon 9600, which cost a third as much as the NVIDIA card. When Half-Life 2 was released a year later, Valve forced all Geforce FX hardware to use the game's DirectX 8 shaders, in order to avoid the FX-series's poor Shader 2.0 performance.

**MavSkipper** · 12-23-2005

Originally Posted by GrIm-ReaPer

i want to buy a good, future prooft graphics card

Playstation Prince, i'm pretty sure Grim knows what it's capable of(he wouldn't have bought it otherwise)... it's just that the card isnt good anymore for current games like BF2 or DoD:S and most likely future games

**SessDMC** · 12-24-2005

Well i swapped my Radeon 9550 For a PNY Verto GeForce 6600 AGP 8x 256MB DDR and so far im so proud of my purchase, alot more better then my ATI 9550 regardless. And it WORKS!

**curryking1** · 06-13-2008

Peter Moore seems to always be at the front of the lines when it comes to war games within the gaming industry. The man who has done it all with SEGA, Microsoft and now with EA Sports seems to always feel as though there are no boundaries for the plans he's set forth. After the review of the companies annual performances, Moore was kind enough to offer up a few quotes worthy of discussion.

"As any business does, we've been completing our annual performance reviews the past few weeks as well as setting objectives and strategic priorities for the year ahead," Moore wrote on his blog, noting that he'd been thinking about "what it takes to be on top, to stay on top and to constantly be in the crosshairs of the rest of your industry."

While this may sound like standard jargon, Moore eventually went on to discuss the NBA Live franchise on his blog. As most gamers who play sports games, you'll be able to understand the disappointing cloud that overshadows the NBA Live franchise. However, with Moore making a statement such as, "The most ground-breaking feature from our lineup this year..." in regards to the title, it can only make you wonder what's to come.

With NCAA 2009 and Madden 2009 expected to make huge leaps in comparison to last year's outing, it makes this bold statement very enticing for fans of the NBA and fans of gaming in general. We'll be sure to keep you guys up to date when something concrete hits about this new ground-breaking feature that Moore is shouting about.